Press and daily Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1880-1889, 1887-10-11
THE EVICTION IN IOWA.
ATTORNEY GENERAL BAKERS RE-
VIEW OF THE CASE

SeNSSS' 10y oCutTdt lOhhcT uaS udu
occasion to maze Official inquiry into
similar cases before this, and the CORE
spondent asked him for the facts in the
case and the attitude to be taken by the
STAT.
Ha replied as follows: 81 am fully ad-
yised as to the status of the suit under
which these eyictions are sought to be
made. The lands from which they are
being ey1cted are lands granted either to
the McGregory g. Western railroad,
now the Chicago, Milwaukee g. st. Paul,
or the Sioux City & st. Paul railroad
company. These two railroad companies
lad grants made to them by congress-,
and in the same bill making the grants
the former was to construct Il line of rail
road from South McGregor westward TO
the missouri river, crossing the track of
the latter road at some point In O'Brfen
county. The latter company was to
build 3 line of railroad from Sioux City,
in a northeasterly direction, to some
point on the line between Iowa INT Min
nesota, crossing the McGregor road, as
stated, at some point in O'Brien county.
To each road there was a grant made
OF the odd-numbered sections on each
side of its line for a distance of ten
miles, and an indemnity right for a dis
lance OF another ten miles on each side
OF such hrst-naEsd strip, that is, here
the odd-numbered sections had been
taken in the first ten-mile strip or limit.
Prior to the making of the grant the
company might GO outside of the first
ten-mile strip and take odd-numbered
sections instead thereof. Being confined
however, to the second ten-miIe strip, it
will readily be seen that at the point
where the roads would cross each other
there would be conflicting claims in what
Is popularity known as The overlapping
district. This conflict came and culmin-
ated in a suit in the United States courts
between the W roads as to the right to
the lands within this district. The Sioux
City and St. Paul company, which COM
pAny had succeeded to the McGreeor
and western company, had forfeited these
lands because it had materially changed
Its route, as constructed from its line of
definite location, as certified to the in
terror department.. On the other hand,
the Milwaukee road claimed that The
Sioux City g. st. Paul company had not
earned the lands, because It had not com
pleted Its line of road. The facts are that
She Sioux City began building its road at
the state line, and had built it's road to
Lemars but no further, and the legisla-
1 SaAO Va AoWoy L eAluh III VIE the 0lnG-
teenth general assembly, declared that
the lands not already patented to it were
forfeited. Upon this declaration the set
tiers in question went upon the lands in
this overlapping district and took claims
and made improvements thereon.
In the meantime the suit between the
railroad companies went on and finally
found Its way into the supreme court at
| Washington. After 1t had bean sub.
mitted there, Gov. Larrabee was written
to by the agent of the settlers at Wash
ington, and at the request of the gov
enor l went to Washington to investigate
The matter in March of last year. I
found upon inspecting the record, that
the state was not in u position to inter-
vene, but that the UEited States could.
The settlers are preparing for a strong
protest In the courts, and 1t is at their
request that a m ~endeayorinR to procure
from the departments all the records.
maps and documents bearing on the case
to enable me to take Intelligent action.
It Is claimed by he settlers that 1t has
been decided by an attorney general of
the United States that that part of the
McGregors o south of McGregor to
Calmnr is not a land grant road, l am
informed, the question arose some years
since between the railroad company and
the secretary of war. The war depart
ment was transporting soldiers and sup
plies over b railroad, and claimed re-
duced rates as provided in the act of con-
gress making the grant. The railroad
company resisted this, and claimed, that
IL was not q land grant road, and fled
afidavits and proofs in support of such
claim. The question was submitted
to the attorney general, and he
held on the showing made, that
the road was not a Immigrant road, and
SO the government had to pay full rates.
1t Is for the records in reference to this
controversy between the road and the
war department that I nave written to
Attorney General Garland Ifit should
prove to be a fact that the road Of this
company was not in fact a land-g grant
road, and that the company obtained
patents to the land by fraud, | should
feel 1t my duty to at once Institute pro-
ceedings to set aside and cancel such pat
ents for that reason.
Gov. Larrabee has at all times taken a
lively interest in the rights Of these set
tiers, and | am under Instructions from
him to do all that 1t is in. the W of
the state to do In the way of aiding them
In maintaining their rights and protect
ing their property. am ~endeavoring so
to do, u 1t is not yet clear to my mind
what way tho state can interfere. am
expecting records and papers that will
assist me In arriving at a conclusion,
and all parties interested may be sure
that no effort will be spared to get At the
bottom of the matter"